How would you change Nikon's D3x DSLR?
By Darren Murph 
posted January 30th 2009 10:42PM
posted January 30th 2009 10:42PM
posted January 30th 2009 10:42PM
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
I'd like the ability to remove the prism, and fit a waist level viewfinder, as is possible on medium format equipment. I've been shooting landscapes with my D80 on a low tripod recently, and framing the shots when the camera's that low can be really awkward.
low down that price....
Price down to 5000$ & D3 like ISO Performance
That lens is going to eat me.
Put it in my pocket.
Improve the Sony-esque horrible 1.8fps @ 14bit FX rate.
That's just horrible.
No, don't go pointing out some lame Nikon press release, it's been tested @ 1.8fps.
From what i've seen the 5D Mark II has the same if not better noise performance compared to the D3. And it has 21MP.
I'm a Nikon guy, but I have to say that Canon is leading on the image quality side of things. Sorry Nikon.
These cameras are getting too darn heavy. They need to create a new stronger, lighter material to use for the chassis.
The D700 with a 50mm lens is heavier than my D80 with a 18-200mm lens. WTF?
"I'm a Nikon guy".
Hahaha. Sure champ! Check out dxomark.com and compare.
About that 'wheight' talk.
No while I do not own a D3x (or more general: a Nikon at all), I do work with Canon's 1D III and the finest part of their L lenses - amongst them being the 35L, 50L, 70-200L and others; of course also 580ex flash and so on ...
The size AND wheight is just about perfect. It gives u stability and control while being on your way taking the best pictures ever. I do have xxxD's and have worked with xxD's and the 5d as well - with all of them: size matters and I refuse to work without the added bulkiness (and wheight), that a battery grip gives you (on top of added battery time).
4/3s can lick my ...
oh yeah .. forgot to mention that: now without any canon fanboy attitudes: that 1.8 frames / sec using 14bit is beyond understanding - completely laughable and ruins the whole camera. whats the point in releasing that thing with that slowness. 14 bit images from the 1d are outstanding and deliver a quality which easily outpaces a LOT of cameras. why would nikon even offer 12bit mode shooting?
OK - as the only poster who actually owns a D3X I feel compelled to write. I received my camera last week in the mail -- I just haven't got around to opening the box yet...
Um... why? If I had one of those it would have been out of the box and in my hands before I even got it through the door!
Kids? we are gadgetloving nerds, often underaged, we don't got no stinking kids ok?
I have a D3 and am thoroughly impressed. As far as I can see the only point of the D3X over that is for studio work. Does it warrent the price? well no but then studio professional can just afford this kind of thing (although would probably have a digital Hasselblad anyway). I don't see the point of the D3X's resolution, it's only a bad thing when the files need to be stored, transferred, manipulated etc. Per pixel sharpness is just not as good as the D3, neither is the low light capability or the speed which is useful for fast moving subjects, HDR etc.
The only down side of the D3X is price but does it matter? No. For 90% of people the D3 is literally better although it's not exactly cheap, it is worth it. The D3X is there to satisfy idiotic pixel junkies in my opinion. Video would be nice but who ever says it needs autofocus needs to think, and then slap themselves in the face!!
Go back to FILM
@iEye
That's what the pimp said.
Make it weigh less... the only type of photography I could imagine myself using this for would be studio work, based solely on the weight. And when it comes to studio work I prefer to use something that's higher res than this, like a Hassy H3D. If this thing weighed about two thirds as much I would use it for landscape work. I would use a 5D, which weighs 400g less than the D3x, but I much prefer Nikon optics and ergonomics.
So.
No.1 - Make it lighter.
No.2 - Make it cheaper. (Not in quality, just price)
Only thing I want to change is "do not talk about it in Engadget", there are professional photography site.
I like the camera to be heavy and bulky. The bigger a camera looks, the more pro it looks. There was a comparison made in Pop-Photo where they shot two pictures, one of a real photographer carrying a small camera (make it as big as an Olympus C-5050) and an off-the-street-guy carrying a pro camera (make it a D3x with 70-200 mm). The first guy can make wonders even with a single use camera, the other isn't sure where the ON/OFF button is. They asked people to tell who looks more professional and the answer was obvious. Most of the people would go for the second guy. Even if a lightweight super-quality camera comes out, if it looks like a small compact camera, it won't catch on.
I wouldn't want to go shooting a wedding with anything less than a D300/D700 with additional grip. When I ask people to step away they see a BIG camera and move away fast. If I had to do the same with a Canon G10 or Nikon P6000 or any other small compact camera things would be different. It's a psychological concept that works. Big camera equals respect.
As for the D3x, I definitely would like the price to be in the 5k-6k range. A camera like that is worth that much, especially if you make your living out of it. And, when I was shooting with the F5, I took pictures and had a workout at the same time ;)
I also would like Nikon to say "We'll be using the FX format from now on". After buying 4-5 pro DX lenses I don't like the idea of going shopping again (i love my 17-55 F2.8). I'd like them to keep the DX line alive for a few more years D300, D400,... and make the same thing in the FX class (D700, D800) and state what the top line will use.
I think I'll stick to my D300 and when I start selling the gear and getting some new one I'll go for some FX lenses and go for some D3x.
The price should fall by then.
It's ugly as sin
I'd buy a cheaper camera and spend the extra money on sweet lenses.
Make it have shot HD 1080p video and AF zoom.
make is be able to shot HD 1080P VIDEO and AF zoom.
@CraigJ - "get it?"
It's become obvious that you don't. WITH A 35MM SENSOR SIZE and the physical restrictions of the 35MM SLR format, yes, most lenses do have that trouble. We're not talking about medium format. If you're going to make that comparison with 4x5, you need to divide by more than 12 to find the equivalent pixel density for a 35MM sensor size. Moreover, (in general, and all other things equal) higher pixel density = smaller pixels = more noise.
Get it?
Change? Make it mine instead. :-D
I'd put a Canon label on it, and call it finished.
Well for starters, take off that fugly hump on the bottom of the camera on the front
With world hunger and all ... the most I could spend with a good conscience was a D300 with a Nikon f1.4 85mm piece of glass.
I guess I would like that little extra that would give me 'full frame' but not at 4 times the price.
@James Nguyen: That fugly bump is an intergrated vertical grip, for:
A) Taking portrait-oriented shots without straining the wrist
B) Just providing more surface area to grip while shooting normal (landscape-oriented) photos.
C) Providing space on the rear of the camera body for the smaller of the two monochrome shooting information displays.
D) Providing space for the battery so the dual-CompactFlash slots can occupy the standard upright hand-grip.
People who don't want this camera to shoot video are one of two things:
1. Haters
Haters have some backwards theory about photography, and the purity of the medium. These people have beef with digital photography in general, and think it has no soul. But they fail to realize that digital photograph, like other mediums goings through a revolution, is better than it's ever been.
2. Chickens
These people are straight up afraid of change and what the future brings. The revolution is here, and it's not going anywhere. All innovations divide people between those who are keen to learn and keep pace, and old dogs who don't want to learn new tricks. Sure there's a learning curve but in the end, it's a really, really good thing.
And finally, to answer the original question, what I would want for this new D3x is not only the ability to shoot video, but in-camera image stabilization... to ensure that both still and video captures are smooth as butter. Oh and I want super smooth ISO performance @ ridiculously high settings like 25,000 ISO. I want to be able to shoot a race car at midnight... hand held with no flash!!!!
Thanks.
www.anotherfaceinthecrowd.com/blog
http://www.flickr.com/photos/boroughbaby
Reply to those who responded to my comment about this camera being an antiquated, bloated relic:
As with many such technology laden topics, the functionality of DSC systems is widely misunderstood, and much mythology is passed around as fact. Also, to those who simply dismissed my comment as coming from someone ignorant of the realities at play here, I'll simply say I design and develop electronics products -- including DSC and DVC products -- for a living, and work with many of the most advanced sensor, optics, and DSC/DVC SoC manufacturers on a daily basis. Lens size is not the prime variable in light gathering -- materials and manufacturing processes drive this function. Small lenses can pass more absolute light to a sensor than larger lenses. DoF is not primarily determined by lens and sensor physical size, but by the geometry of the overall assembly, and by the planar geometry of the sensor. Again, smaller lenses and sensors can have impressive DoF variability and precision. Well-considered ergonomic design can yield product handling traits and absolute usage stability in a much lighter package than the 5+ pounds of these dinosaurs. Bleeding edge sensor technology can pack flat, thin, super sensitive pixel arrays into much smaller footprints than the arbitrary 35mm so-called "full frame" dimensions. Pentaprism dimensions are dictated by the scale of the optics + sensor system, so can be much smaller. Given a cooperative commitment by a group composed of dedicated manufacturers of optics, sensors, and electronics, a DSLR the functional equal of this Nikon beast could be created, one that surpasses the expectations of even the most fiercely persnickety professional photographer. However, for such a new platform to be (immediately) commercially successful, it would have to be launched by either Nikon or Canon. And, these companies are satisfied with feeding their existing customer base ever more extended renditions of this 1970's era form factor. Like Microsoft choosing to not rock the boat by making sweeping kernel-level changes in its OS product, these camera makers choose to not face the wrath (and potential sales impact) from jettisoning their legacy lens systems.
Fact: There is simply no technologically driven reason for "pro" cameras to mimic their mechanical 35mm format predecessors. Doing so is merely a marketing decision made by the powers-to-be within Nikon and Canon. Anyone not understanding this just doesn't know the facts and current options -- options being ignored by these two supposed market leaders.
So yes... I look at the shiny new top-of-the-line pro Nikon and gag a little.
To jeedud: Re: in-camera image stabilization, video
I've reached a point where I want zero internal processes in my cameras that affect the native image -- including image stabilization. If I want jitter removal, I'll do it in software, as I do all other image correction/mods. That way, *I* have creative control of the result.
And, I totally agree there is no reason in 2009 for a digital camera product, especially a so-called professional product, to not shoot video... in the instance of this Nikon product, **exceptional** video. There are simply no fundamental sensor variables/limitations/tradeoffs that prevent the same chip from delivering both still and moving image data to pro standards.
Some don't care about video, but I'm sorry, in this day and age, with some cameras possessing the capability and for that price? Uh, yeah, it's going to need video. 1920x1080/60/30 progressive video with audio and full lens and zoom capability.
And drop the price of the camera and your glass, Nikon. I don't care what they do. Eight grand is too freakin' much for just a camera body and $1500 is too much for one lens. Give us a break.
Like, an inbuilt flash duh. And maybe some cute colours like pink or lime green, and defs a mode where you can put some sweet little borders and things around the pix of your bffs!
I own a D3 and a D700. I would of loved if the D3X would have a self-cleaning sensor system like on the D700. The D3 and the D3X are essentially the same camera, but the D3X has more megapix. For the US$3500 price gap between the D3 and the D3X, I would of wish for more like nightvision, or an intergrated wifi transfert system, or a intergrated PocketWizard transmitter.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_post.asp?method=sidebyside&cameras=nikon_d3%2Cnikon_d3x&show=all
they should make it in colors. chromakon.....haha. NO.
i think nikon should add an mp3 player to it. then it'll compete with the ipod.